Starcraft 2 on the 27" iMac 6770 512MB

[travistaylor]

I have searched and searched, but I've come up empty.

Can anyone confirm how Starcraft 2 runs on the base model 27" iMac? I'd love to know average FPS at native resolution if anyone has it....

Thanks, guys. I'm sure there is a thread burried somewhere with this information, I just can't find it.

 

[forty2j]

The Battle.net forums would be a much better place to look. The Mac community is pretty active over there. Just beeline for the Mac Tech Support area.

Preliminary answer: it will run, but you won't be happy with the quality or the frame rate.

 

[travistaylor]

Yeah, I tried there but can't seem to find a simple "my 2011 base 27" iMac gets __ FPS with high settings in native resolution" type of answer...

Also, I guess for some clarification- my home state is having a Tax Free weekend this weekend. I'm trying to decide whether or not to spring for an iMac 27". I'm also trying to decide if I want the base model 27" or the model with 1GB VRAM.... Obviously the latter will perform better- but is it worth the extra cash?

 

[forty2j]

If you want to run SC2 on an imac at high settings, native resolution, and a good frame rate, you really want the 6970m with 2Gb (bto option) if you must buy before the 2012s come out. It's a pretty demanding game. The 6770m is crap. The stock 1gb 6970m can handle it but you'd probably find yourself lowering the resolution or a couple settings to smooth out the frame rate.

Note tho: it will be worth paying sales tax to wait for the 2012s if you like games. It's a bumper year for the mobile GPUs iMacs use. Expect each model to have roughly double the graphics performance of its predecessor.

 

[iMcLovin]

If you want to run SC2 on an imac at high settings, native resolution, and a good frame rate, you really want the 6970m with 2Gb (bto option) if you must buy before the 2012s come out. It's a pretty demanding game. The 6770m is crap. The stock 1gb 6970m can handle it but you'd probably find yourself lowering the resolution or a couple settings to smooth out the frame rate.

Note tho: it will be worth paying sales tax to wait for the 2012s if you like games. It's a bumper year for the mobile GPUs iMacs use. Expect each model to have roughly double the graphics performance of its predecessor.

One of the main reason why I wait. Not only for games but 3d software and even photoshop is using the GPU now.

 

[travistaylor]

Ah, I gotcha. Thanks so much for the help!

I think I'll just wait. The extra $170ish will be worth it to me. Besides, I might actually save money by waiting if I could get by with the base model. The 2GB VRAM is an expensive machine!

 

[leadfeather89]

Do you plan on playing competitively on the ladder?

Or just the campaign?

 

[travistaylor]

Neither...I like to play recreationally on the ladder.

I enjoy SC2 on my custom built Windows desktop on ultra settings, and understand that many competitive players would rather play the game on low settings so things are easier to see. I don't really care too much about that, I just like the nice graphics.

That said, I'm in no huge hurry to get an iMac, I'd just like to replace my MacBook Pro from 2007 and have no need for my Windows box.

 

[bigcat318]

Not an iMac but for comparison my late 2008 MBP (2.53ghz C2D, 8GB ram, 512mb vram) I typically have to play online with medium settings, and still get the notice that my graphics are slowing down the game. Though it seems to ba random (sometimes during large battles, others at the very beginning of the game with nothing going on). I do insist on playing at native 1440x900 resolution though because everything looks awful otherwise.

I'd try and hold out for the next models and then consider the graphics bump.

 

[davidcmc]

The 6770M is weak for Starcraft 2.

It runs the game well at low settings, but who the **** likes to play games using that graphic settings?

If you want to play games at high settings, either you buy the high-end iMac 27", a Mac Pro or just buy spare parts from NewEgg and assemble your own gaming PC.

Macs aren't worth machines if you want to play games.

People say that Mac OS X is getting a lot of games and blah blah blah, but those are mobile-alike games that run in any ****** system.

Real games demand real and decent GPU, which isn't present in 90% of Macs.

 

[forty2j]

In terms of getting performance out of the *same* hardware, I was just reading that Mountain Lion is helping close the gap and the OS X penalty is down to about 10%.

Yes, if you are ok with Windows and you want maximum gaming performance, you're better off buying/building something with a desktop GPU. But if the use of OS X is at all important to you, when we finally get a 2012 iMac with a 680M it's going to be a sweet gaming machine. The 680M performance is just a little bit below the desktop 670.